The Punjab and Haryana High Court appellate court rejected the appellant State Road Transport Corporation's challenge to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation award,finding the Tribunal's reasoning cogent and acceptable, and dismissed the appeal as the respondent did not seek enhancement.
Appeal dismissed
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
130 Injury case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1878-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.11.2021
UP State Road Transport Corporation
…Appellant Versus
Arzoo (Minor) and another …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for the appellant. **(Presence marked through video conference). *****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Appellant is owner of the offending bus i.e. UP State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved against quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the injuredArzoo.
the quantum thereof, inter alia, based on the following reasoning:-
XXX XXX “ 30 As per the case set up by claimant-Arzoo she suffered serious injuries in the accident, which took place on 28.04.2019 on various parts of the body i.e she suffered abdomen/liver injuries, Renal injuries, Splenic injuries and multiple fractures on ribs and other parts of the body. She was initially taken to Begrajpur Medical College from the spot and from there, she was shifted to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where many operations were conducted by doctors on her and she remained admitted there up to 07.05.2019, and she is still under treatment. Further, as per the contents of the claim petition, she was 16 years of age at the
VANDANA 2021.11.15 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
time of accident and before accident, she was in very good state of health, and was a meritorious student studying in Class XI. Further, as per contents of the claim petition, she became permanently disabled due to the injuries suffered in the accident and is confined to bed till today and she is totally dependent on others.
Neither it is the case of respondents, nor it has come on record that Arzoo was not travelling in the innova car in question on the fateful day, and that she did not suffer injuries .
31. The question is whether, she suffered any permanent disability. The answer to said question is ‘No’ as there is no disability certificate on record. Further, no doctor has been got examined by the claimant Arzoo to prove the said claim. Since that is so i.e. there is no permanent disability, therefore, as per law laid down in the authority (supra), she is only entitled for expenses relating to:-
i treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenses;
ii Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
iii Damages for pain, suffering and Trauma as a consequence of injuries.”
cogent and acceptable reasons while arriving at the quantum of compensation. I find no grounds for taking a different view.
life having been witness to the accident where one of the co-victim lost the life, is much worse than having suffered physical injuries.
01.11.2021 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
VANDANA 2021.11.15 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Tribunal had cogent reasons for awarding the quantum of compensation.
Whether mental trauma constitutes injury sufficient to claim compensation when physical injury is disputed.
UP State Road Transport Corporation
Arzoo
ARUN MONGA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
